3rd filing in the Pagliara v. Freddie Mac case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA’s lawyers from Arnold & Porter entered their appearances in the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday. Later today, FHFA and Freddie Mac should be filing their Reply in support of their request to stay Mr. Pagliara’s lawsuit.”

4th filing in the Pagliara v. Freddie Mac case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA and Freddie Mac filed their Reply today again arguing that the Court should press the pause button in Mr. Pagliara’s lawsuit in Virginia to silence him temporarily, or substitute FHFA for Mr. Pagliara to silence him entirely. FHFA and Freddie Mac tell the Court that they, rather than Mr. Pagliara, will suffer prejudice if Mr. Pagliara’s lawsuit isn’t placed on hold because of “the real risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings and time-consuming and duplicative proceedings.”

New filing in the Piszel case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The National Black Chamber of Commerce delivered an amicus brief to the Federal Circuit today in Piszel v. U.S.”

New filing in the JPMDL, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Ms. Robinson advised the JPMDL yesterday that Judge Thapur in Kentucky has indicated he’s:
(A) ready to rule on the government’s motions to dismiss pending in his court if Ms. Robinson’s case is not transferred; and
(B) happy to oversee the consolidated litigation if the MDL Panel so chooses.”

A big-business voice for Trump – philly.com
“Trump articulates Payne’s own disgust “as far as what’s going on in our country. I saw the demise of the banking system, and I see nobody has paid anything, as far as incarceration and penalties, in terms of what they did.” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have forced banks to pay back billions for bad loans — but, unlike in the S&L crisis of the late 1980s and other financial shocks, this time the individuals who lied about the bad loans in the first place haven’t been prosecuted: ‘It doesn’t make any sense to me.'”

New filing in the PricewaterhouseCoopers case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Moreno entered an order today placing the lawsuit against PwC on hold and directed the Shareholders to provide quarterly reports, starting in July, about lifting the stay.”

New filing in the JPMDL, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Mr. Pagliara filed his response with the MDL Panel yesterday. Mr. Pagliara opposes transfer and consolidation of his dissimilar cases.”

New filing in the Robinson case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Thapur entered an order today following Monday’s teleconference. Judge Thapur has decided to place Ms. Robinson’s lawsuit on hold pending a ruling by the JPMDL, provided that ruling is made prior to July 1. Otherwise, Judge Thapur will rule on the governments’ motions to dismiss on July 29. Judge Thapur also indicates that he’d be happy to oversee other cases challenging the Third Amendment if the MDL Panel chooses to send them to him.”

New filing in the Perry case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “(This is) the transcript of Friday morning’s oral argument in Perry v. Lew before the D.C. Circuit.”

New filing in the Pagliara v. FMCC case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Mr. Pagliara opposes FHFA’s motion to stay proceedings in Virginia pending a transfer and consolidation decision by the JPMDL. Mr. Pagliara recommends that Judge Anderson ignore FHFA’s sideshow before the MDL Panel because, in all events, his limited request for access to specific Freddie Mac books and records will have to be decided by a court in Virginia.”

Sen. Shelby Requests Probe of FHFA – DS News
“Also, Shelby noted, the initial purpose of the common securitization platform created by the GSEs was to facilitate greater competition in the secondary mortgage market; however, he said, ‘it appears that the FHFA is no longer taking steps to enable the platform to be used by entities other than the enterprises.’”

New filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The government and Fairholme delivered a Joint Status Report to Judge Sweeney this afternoon indicating they agree her order rejecting Prof. Yoo’s amicus brief should be unsealed.”

New filing in the JPMDL, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA delivered its Reply to the JPMDL yesterday. FHFA calls the shareholder-plaintiffs’ attempts to distinguish their cases “illusory and immaterial” and says they fail. FHFA tells the JPMDL to ignore arguments FHFA made opposing the transfer of other cases because, um, FHFA knows best which cases should and shouldn’t be transferred and consolidated? FHFA presses forward with its pitch for transfer and consolidation of the Florida audit malpractice cases to which it and the GSEs are not a party. Surprisingly, FHFA ignored Josh Angel’s Response (Doc. 11) in its Reply.”

New filing in the Deloitte case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA supports Deloitte’s request to stay the Florida shareholder litigation and, relying on sec. 4617 of HERA, asks the Court to substitute it for the shareholder-plaintiffs suing Deloitte. FHFA’s argument is that under HERA the Congress conveyed all shareholder rights to FHFA when Fannie Mae was placed into conservatorship, now only FHFA has standing to sue Deloitte, and allowing shareholders to sue would violate HERA’s prohibition on shareholder lawsuits.”

2nd filing in the Deloitte case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Scola entered an Order this afternoon pressing the pause button in this lawsuit until the JPMDL makes its ruling on FHFA’s transfer and consolidation motion.”

New filing in the PricewaterhouseCoopers case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Relying on sec. 4617 of HERA, FHFA asks the Court to substitute it for the shareholder-plaintiffs suing PricewaterhouseCoopers in Florida. FHFA’s argument is that under HERA the Congress conveyed all shareholder rights to FHFA when Freddie Mac was placed into conservatorship, now only FHFA has standing to sue PwC, and allowing shareholders to sue would violate HERA’s prohibition on shareholder lawsuits.”

2nd filing in the PricewaterhouseCoopers case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “PricewaterhouseCoopers is asking the Court to place the Edwards lawsuit on hold until the JPMDL makes its ruling on FHFA’s transfer and consolidation request.”

New filing in the Perry case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Perry delivered an unopposed motion to the D.C. Circuit today to unseal the Institutional Plaintiffs’ Initial and Final Reply Briefs and seven documents referenced in those Reply Briefs that Fairholme filed under seal in July and which Judge Sweeney de-designated earlier this week.”

New filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The parties delivered a Joint Status Report to Judge Sweeney this morning asking her to unseal her Order (Doc. 311) dated Apr. 11, 2016, so they can deliver a copy to the D.C. Circuit.”

New filing in the Robinson case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA and Treasury filed a Reply today in support of their motion to stay Ms. Robinson’s lawsuit. The government predicts the MDL Panel will transfer and consolidate the cases challenging the Third Amendment, and based on that prediction, urges Judge Thapur to place Ms. Robinson’s lawsuit on hold.”

In the Fairholme case, Peter Chapman writes,
“Judge Sweeney entered two Orders this afternoon:
— Doc. 310, denying Prof. Yoo’s motion to file an amicus brief; and
— Doc. 311, granting in part and denying in part the Shareholders’ request to unseal the handful of documents lodged with the D.C. Circuit.
Both orders are under seal and are not available to the public at this time. How this affects oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Friday morning is unknowable at this time.”

New filing in the Robinson case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA and Treasury filed their Joint Motion to Stay Ms. Robinson’s Kentucky lawsuit this past Friday. The government wants Ms. Robinson’s case put on hold until two weeks after the JPMDL makes its decision on FHFA’s transfer and consolidation request.

2nd filing in the Robinson case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Ms. Robinson opposes the government’s request to put her lawsuit on hold. Ms. Robinson urges Judge Thapur to bring a halt the government’s gamesmanship and deny their motion to stay her lawsuit. It is well settled, Mr. Robinson argues, that a motion to transfer filed with JPMDL does not suspend all litigation in all other federal courts. Mr. Robinson says applicable case law teaches that other advanced litigation — like her lawsuit — should continue without delay, and Ms. Robinson wants Judge Thapur to rule on the government’s pending motions to dismiss her lawsuit. Ms. Robinson wants Judge Thapur to do exactly what he did in Williams v. Altman, Case No. 12-131 (E.D. Ky.), when he decided that “settling the jurisdictional issue now would save the parties the added expense, effort, and delay of additional briefing before the MDL Panel.”

New filings in the Deloitte case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Deloitte & Touche wants the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to stay the lawsuit against it concerning its audits of Fannie Mae. Deloitte steers the Court’s attention to judicial efficiency and redundant litigation considerations, and wants the lawsuit against it placed on hold until the JPMDL renders its decision on FHFA’s transfer and consolidation request.”

In the Fairholme case, Peter Chapman writes, “Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq., at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, filed a Reply (Doc. 309) to the government’s objection to the pending request to unseal the handful of discovery documents lodged with the D.C. Circuit late Friday. Like the Motion filed by Mr. Hume on Mar. 31, the Reply was filed under seal and is not available to the public at this time.”

New filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Prof. Yoo filed a request today for permission to file an amicus brief in support of the Class Plaintiffs’ request to be able to reference a limited amount of confidential discovery material during oral argument before the D.C. Circuit in Perry v. Lew on Fri., Apr. 15. Prof. Yoo points out that the documents to which the Class Plaintiffs want to refer aren’t privileged, or the Class Plaintiffs wouldn’t have them, so the reason this handful of documents more than three-years-old isn’t public is not because they are privileged but because the government doesn’t want the public to second guess its decision to nationalize the GSEs and wants to avoid public criticism.”

2nd filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The government opposes the Institutional Plaintiffs’ request to unseal the handful of documents lodged with the D.C. Circuit and opposes Prof. Yoo’s request to submit an amicus brief in this matter.
Singing another round of “you should have done it differently,” the government tells Judge Sweeney that the Institutional Plaintiffs’ requests are premature and speculative because nobody’s talked about oral argument logistics before the D.C. Circuit next week. The government stresses that the public has no right to see confidential discovery materials and maintains its position that facts are irrelevant because the Congress intended for HERA to silence shareholders.
The government suggests that Prof. Yoo’s thoughts about the sealed documents are useless because he hasn’t seen the documents he discusses.”

New filing in the Deloitte case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Deloitte exercised its right today to remove the lawsuit filed against it by Fannie Mae shareholders in Florida state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The U.S. District Court Clerk has assigned Case No. 16-cv-21221 to the proceeding, and the case has been assigned to the Honorable Robert N. Scola, Jr. Latham & Watkins LLP is serving as lead counsel to Deloitte in this matter.”

2nd filing in the PricewaterhouseCoopers case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “PricewaterhouseCoopers exercised its right today to remove the lawsuit filed against it by Freddie Mac shareholders in Florida state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The U.S. District Court Clerk has assigned Case No. 16-cv-21224 to the proceeding, and the case has been assigned to the Honorable Federico A. Moreno. Sedgwick LLP is representing PwC in this matter.
PwC delivered a Notice (Doc. 5) to the Court today advising that this case is related to Edwards v. Deloitte, and a copy of that Notice is attached to this e-mail message. That may cause a reassignment of this case or Edwards v. Deloitte or both.

New filing in the JPMDL, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA delivered a Notice to the JPMDL today suggesting that Edwards v. Deloitte and Edwards v. PricewaterhouseCoopers now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida should be rolled into MDL No. 2713.”

New filing in the Roberts case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Roberts Plaintiffs oppose FHFA and Treasury’s request for a stay.
The Roberts Plaintiffs direct Judge Chang’s attention to the words FHFA used when the regulatory agency opposed the transfer and consolidation of a bunch of cases concerning real estate transfer taxes in 2012, for the proposition that FHFA’s request that the JPMDL transfer and consolidate isn’t a sure thing. The Roberts Plaintiffs urge Judge Chang to keep their lawsuit in Chicago moving forward unless and until the JPMDL tells him to do something else.

4th filing in the Roberts case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA and Treasury filed a Reply in support of their Motion for a Stay today (Doc. 32).
Following the filing of that Reply, Judge Chang entered two orders:
— Doc. 33, directing the Roberts Plantiffs to file a redacted version of their amended complaint (Doc. 20); and
— Doc. 34, staying the Roberts case, and rescheduling the status conference in this case to June 28, 2016.”

In the Perry case, Peter Chapman writes, “The parties in Perry v. Lew have advised the D.C. Circuit that these four lawyers will be participating in oral argument on Fri., Apr. 15:
— Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq., at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, on behalf of the Class Plaintiffs;
— Howard N. Cayne, Esq., at Arnold & Porter, on behalf of FHFA;
— Theodore B. Olson, Esq., at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, on behalf of the Institutional Plaintiffs; and
— Mark B. Stern, Esq., at the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of Treasury.”

5th filing in the Roberts case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “More papers were filed in Chicago late yesterday and today:
— Doc. 26, an Agreed Motion extending FHFA and Treasury’s time to file their motions for dismiss to 30 days after Judge Chang rules on the Motion to Stay (Doc. 23);
— Doc. 27, a Notice indicating that the Agreed Motion is scheduled for a hearing on Apr. 11;
— Doc. 28, a Joint Initial Status Report relating nothing new except that “[n]o settlement discussions have occurred [and] the Parties do not believe that settlement is likely in this case . . .”;
— Doc. 29, an Appearance by Caroline J. Anderson, Esq., at the Dept. of Justice in D.C.; and
— Doc. 30, a Notice indicating that Judge Chang granted the requests by FHFA’s lawyers at Arnold & Porter to appear pro hac vice.”

New filing in the JPMDL, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Ms. Robinson delivered her Response to the JPMDL today. Ms. Robinson urges the MDL Panel to deny FHFA’s transfer and consolidation request because — using the words FHFA used to argue against transfer and consolidation of cases in 2012 dealing with real estate transfer taxes — it’s an attempt to game the system and centralize cases in a court that’s delivered a result FHFA likes. Ms. Robinson says the facts underpinning her complaint are different from the facts underpinning the cases Judge Lamberth dismissed and those facts only came to light after Judge Lamberth made his ruling (which is now on appeal). If the MDL Panel finds that transfer and consolidation is appropriate, Ms. Robinson recommends the cases be centralized in the Eastern District of Kentucky. Ms. Robinson opposes any suggestion to centralize the cases in the District of Delaware because the facts underpinning the cases before Judge Sleet are vastly different.”

2nd filing in the JPMDL, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Saxton Plaintiffs filed their Response with the JPMDL this afternoon, and a copy is attached to this e-mail message. The Saxton Plaintiffs oppose FHFA’s transfer and consolidation request because (i) the facts in their case differ from the cases Judge Lamberth dismissed and (ii) they don’t believe Judge Lamberth would give their lawsuit fair consideration. The Saxton Plaintiffs support Ms. Robinson’s selection of the Eastern District of Kentucky as a transferee district rather than the Districts of Columbia or Delaware, observing that Judge Thapur in Kentucky is far more expeditious than Judge Lamberth in D.C. resolving cases on his docket. The Saxton Plaintiffs echo Ms. Robinson’s advice not to consolidate their cases with the Delaware and Virginia cases because those shareholders’ cases are rooted in state law.”

3rd filing in the JPMDL, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Roberts Plaintiffs filed their Response with the JPMDL this afternoon. The Roberts Plaintiffs agree with Ms. Robinson that FHFA’s request for transfer and consolidation should be denied. The Roberts Plaintiffs stress that their lawsuit is factually distinguishable from other lawsuits against FHFA. The Roberts Plaintiffs argue that centralization in the District of Columbia, where the outcome would be preordained in FHFA’s favor and where there are no pending cases at this time, would be improper. The Roberts Plaintiffs oppose transfer to the District of Delaware and support transfer to the Eastern District of Kentucky.”

4th filing in the JPMDL, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes filed their Response with the JPMDL this afternoon. Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes also oppose the FHFA’s transfer and consolidation request. FHFA’s motion, they say, “is not an effort to streamline litigation in multiple forums, but rather is a blatant attempt to shop for a forum that has already issued rulings purportedly favorable to FHFA, but where no related case is actually ending.” In short, Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes tell the MDL Panel, the common questions of fact the FHFA wants to see don’t exist. Accordingly, transfer and consolidation of the pending cases challenging the Net Worth Sweep is inappropriate, and FHFA’s motion should be denied. Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes would support informal coordination for discovery purposes, but observe that’s already happening. In all events, Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes tell the MDL Panel, the District of Columbia is the worst venue in which to consolidate Third Amendment Litigation cases under every applicable standard previously articulated by the JPMDL.”

3rd filing in the Pagliara v. Freddie Mac case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Freddie Mac delivered its Reply (Doc. 18) in support of its motion (Doc. 13) for more time to respond to Mr. Pagliara’s complaint to the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia today. Following receipt of Freddie Mac’s Reply:
(A) Magistrate Anderson entered an Order (Doc. 19) extending Freddie Mac’s time to respond to Mr. Pagliara’s complaint; and
(B) Judge Cacheris entered an Order (Doc. 20):
(1) granting the parties’ Joint Motion (Doc. 17) to extend the briefing schedule;
(2) directing Mr. Pagliara to file his brief opposing a stay of this case by Apr. 20; and
(3) directing Freddie Mac (and, presumably, FHFA) to file their brief in support of a stay and in support of substitution by Apr. 29.

New filing in the Roberts case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Roberts Plaintiffs in Chicago will be amending their Complaint to incorporate confidential discovery materials they obtained in Fairholme v. U.S. The motion indicates that FHFA and Treasury do not oppose the Roberts Plaintiffs’ request.”

5th filing in the Roberts case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “More papers were delivered to Judge Chang in Chicago this afternoon:
— Doc. 21, a Notice indicating that the Roberts Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint is scheduled for a hearing on Apr. 11;
— Doc. 22, the Chicago Shareholders’ amended complaint, filed under seal;
— Doc. 23, FHFA and Treasury’s motion to stay Roberts v. FHFA until the MDL Panel renders it’s decision about whether to transfer and consolidate;
— Doc. 24, FHFA and Treasury’s memorandum in support of their request for a stay; and
— Doc. 25, a Notice indicating that the Motion to Stay is scheduled for a hearing on Apr. 11.

New filing in the Pagliara v. Freddie Mac case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Mr. Pagliara filed his opposition to Freddie Mac’s request to extend its deadline to respond to the Virginia lawsuit. Mr. Pagliara wants action, not further delay. Mr. Pagliara’s lawyers at Hogan Lovells don’t see transfer and consolidation of all cases challenging the Third Amendment as a foregone conclusion.”

2nd filing in the Pagliara v. Freddie Mac case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Mr. Pagliara, FHFA and Freddie agreed today:
— that Mr. Pagliara will file his objection to Freddie and FHFA’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 10) by Apr. 20, 2016; and
— that a hearing on the Motion to Stay will be held on May 5, 2016; and
— to ask Magistrate Anderson for his stamp of approval on this schedule.”

In the Pagliara v. Fannie Mae case, Peter Chapman writes, “A notation on the docket sheet in Pagliara v. Fannie Mae made today indicates that Judge Sleet has stayed the case in Delaware pending the MDL Panel’s decision about whether to transfer and consolidate cases challenging the Net Worth Sweep.”

New filing in the Perry case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Order shows that the D.C. Circuit wants to hear from four parties in Perry v. Lew on Fri., Apr. 15: the Institutional Plaintiffs, the Class Plaintiffs, FHFA and Treasury, and each of their lawyers will have 15 minutes before Judges Brown, Millett and Ginsburg.”

New filing in the Saxton case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Chief Judge Reade entered an Order this afternoon granting the government’s motion to stay proceedings in Saxton v. FHFA until the MDL Panel makes its decision about whether to transfer and consolidate cases challenging the Net Worth Sweep.
If FHFA files its reply with the MDL Panel by Apr. 13, as it has represented to Chief Judge Reade that it will, the JPMDL should be able to make a decision following its next bi-monthly hearing in Chicago on May 26.”

New filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The government delivered a two-page notice to Judge Sweeney saying it intends to oppose the Class Plaintiffs’ request and file a formal response by Fri., Apr. 8.”

2nd filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Sweeney entered an order today directing the government to file its Response no later than Fri., Apr. 8.”